> That's a very good point that I hadn't considered - I spent too much time > looking in the wrong place and came up with a rendering workaround that > wasn't necessary.
Yes, these things happen :-) > So if I rewrite the query to take the case (in)sensitivity > into account, i.e. just alway use upper case for names, then I don't need to > fumble around with low level identifier rendering. Beware that upper-casing case-insensitive names may be database-dependent. Not all databases behave that way. You'll probably be safe for Oracle/HSQLDB, though. > In hindsight, the case-sensitivity seems like such an obvious solution, so > I'm sorry for wasting your time going on a wild goose chase. No time wasted. Such feedback will help improve the API in the future. Maybe the Table.as() and Field.as() methods should have some additional Javadoc hinting at case-sensitivity and RenderNameStyle. I'll improve that in a future version of jOOQ: https://github.com/jOOQ/jOOQ/issues/1983 > Your points > about the general handling of identifiers across different databases are > sensible as well - it sounds like your are speaking out of experience. Yes, at least the experience of running jOOQ's many integration tests. As always, some things in SQL are vendor-specific and quite surprising to someone used to run SQL only against their single favourite database :-) Cheers Lukas
